This is why I decided to deal with OOFLam first.
I don't believe you.
You have constructed this proof in the same false-dilemma fashion as you have every other proof you have proffered in this forum, and in the same false-dilemma fashion as nearly every fringe claimant does in all genres of fringe argumentation. You're doing it not because it was an acceptable way to organize your proof. You're doing it because it's the standard way among fringe claimants to pretend to have proven something for which they have absolutely no evidence, by no more than suggesting that some straw-man alternative is not viable.
You're dealing a false-dilemma pseudo-proof because you figured out long ago that the required direct proof for your claim is impossible. Now you're just trying to disguise the false dilemma with a lot of math you hope to quibble over until your critics get tired of your intransigence and leave you with the illusion of self-justification.
The virtual proof of immortality depends upon the virtual disproof of OOFLam.
No. The falsity of one finite life would be a consequence of an eventual proof of immortality. Do not commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
If I can show that OOFLam is most likely wrong, the rest should be relatively easy.
This doesn't fix your problem. You equivocate what OOFLAM and not-OOFLAM are, and what the scientific hypothesis of materialism is. You can't properly partition the set of available hypothesis and remain consistent in that partitioning throughout your argument. No amount of silly acronyms or repetition of your proposal fixes this. You are attempting a mathematical proof, and your inability to specify the various hypotheses with mathematical precision and consistency is immediately fatal.
The statement "only one finite life at most" is largely meaningless. You derived it merely by converting the grab-bag of dissimilar hypotheses, any one of which would satisfy your desire to be immortal in some way. Pretending to have disproven that statement doesn't establish which, if any, of the other hypotheses can hold. It just tickles the false dilemma at the rotten core of your argument.
The formulation of H as the scientific materialism explanation for the manifestation of the self is reasonably meaningful, but pretending to have disproven it doesn't establish either immaterialism or immortality. Again, it just tickles the false dilemma.
That's because the specific variations included under ~OOFLam that allow for a finite life have prior probabilities, in my opinion, of virtually zero.
Irrelevant at best, completely made-up at worst. Our itinerant statisticians have assured us that you can make up whatever priors to you want, so long as the likelihoods are not in dispute. What you're trying to do here is jump ahead of the proof and use your prior probabilities to inform the propriety of your overall approach, specifically to make it seem like a two-step proof where you prove a softer claim justifies jumping to the hard claim with "relative[] eas[e]." This is tantamount to begging the question. You're adopting a particular formulation of a proof solely because your guesswork suggests it will make your next step easier, not because it actually proves anything.
